Kylie v CCMA

Last updated

Kylie v CCMA
Court Labour Appeal Court of South Africa
Full case nameKylie v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others
Decided26 May 2010
Docket nos.CA 10/08
Citation(s) [2010] ZALAC 8; 2010 (4) SA 383 (LAC); 2010 (10) BCLR 1029 (LAC); (2010) 31 ILJ 1600 (LAC); [2010] 7 BLLR 705 (LAC)
Case history
Prior action(s)Kylie v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others [2008] ZALC 86 in the Labour Court of South Africa
Court membership
Judges sitting Zondo JP, Davis JA and Jappie JA
Case opinions
Section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa extends labour rights to sex workers, and sex workers are therefore entitled to protections against unfair dismissal in terms of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Decision byDavis JA (unanimous)
Keywords

Kylie v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others is an important decision in South African labour law, handed down on 26 May 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge of Appeal Dennis Davis held that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applied to sex workers and that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration therefore had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a sex worker and the brothel that had fired her. Although the court affirmed that sex workers' employment contracts were legally unenforceable, it held that sex workers were nonetheless protected by the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa.

Contents

Background

The appellant, pseudonymized as Kylie, was employed as a sex worker at Brigitte's Massage Parlour, a brothel in Bellville, until she was fired in April 2006, among other things because she refused to render oral sex as "a matter of taste". [1] She lodged a complaint at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed in terms of section 185 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. However, before hearing any evidence on the merits of that complaint, the CCMA ruled in December 2006 that it lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair dismissal dispute in the sex work industry, which had been criminalised by the Sexual Offences Act, 1957. [2]

Prior action

Kylie challenged the CCMA's decision in the Labour Court of South Africa, where she was represented by Wim Trengove. [1] On 31 July 2008 in Cape Town, Acting Judge Halton Cheadle dismissed her suit. Cheadle held that the Labour Relations Act cannot be read to grant sex workers an enforceable statutory right to a fair dismissal. [3] The enforcement of a claim to such a right would be contrary to the "fundamental principle" in common law that courts "ought not to sanction or encourage illegal activity". For Cheadle, in line with this principle, it was clear that sex workers' employment contracts are unenforceable, because they are illegal under the Sexual Offences Act; the ex turpi causa non oritur actio rule outweighed the in pari delicto rule.

However, Cheadle also noted that the Labour Relations Act is grounded in the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa, and considered the possibility that, notwithstanding the invalidity of the contractual employment relationship, section 23 might extend constitutional protections to those engaged in illegal employment; in that case, the Labour Relations Act (or Cheadle's interpretation of it) might be inconsistent with the Constitution. Yet Cheadle concluded that sex workers are not included in the scope of section 23, because granting section 23 rights to sex workers would sanction or encourage illegal activity, in violation of common law principles, and would therefore undermine the rule of law, in violation of a fundamental constitutional value. Alternatively, even if sex workers do have section 23 rights, the Labour Relations Act – in denying protection against unfair dismissal to sex workers – imposes a justifiable limitation on those rights, because the limitation "gives effect" to the rule-of-law principle that courts should not sanction illegal activity.

Kylie lodged an appeal, which was heard in 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court, sitting in Johannesburg. Presiding were Judge President Raymond Zondo and Judges of Appeal Dennis Davis and Achmat Jappie. [4]

Judgment

The Labour Appeal Court's unanimous decision was handed down by Judge Davis on 26 May 2010. [5] The decision was premised on the court's interpretation of section 23(1) of the Constitution, which provides that "everyone has the right to fair labour practices". Davis held that the word "everyone" should be read broadly and literally, in line with Justice Arthur Chaskalson's approach in S v Makwanyane (on the right to life of criminals) and Justice Yvonne Mokgoro's approach in Khosa v Minister of Social Development (on the socioeconomic rights of non-citizens). Section 23 of the Constitution provides broad protections for the dignity of all those in an employment relationship, regardless of whether the employment relationship is governed by a legally enforceable contract. The Labour Relations Act must be read to preserve and implement those protections, as recently held by the Constitutional Court in Chirwa v Transnet.

Having found that Kylie had a constitutional right to fair labour practices, the court also found that she was entitled to legal relief for the violation of that right. Davis held that there is "no principled reason by which she should not be entitled to some constitutional protection designed to protect her dignity and which protection by extension has now been operationalised in the LRA", especially given that sex workers were members of a vulnerable class. Davis reflected unfavourably on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, commenting of the United States Supreme Court that "much of their jurisprudence can be described as being significantly incongruent with our Constitution’s commitment to freedom, equality and dignity and its concern to protect the vulnerable, exploited and powerless"; instead, Davis aligned himself with "the more enlightened minority opinion" of Justice Stephen Breyer, who had argued that employers should not be allowed to use the illegal immigration status of employees to relieve themselves of their responsibilities under labour law.

The Labour Appeal Court therefore held that, even though Kylie's employment contract was legally unenforceable, the law could take cognisance of her employment relationship and recognise her as an employee for the purposes of section 185 of the Labour Relations Act. Were Kylie to prove that she had been unfairly dismissed, the illegal nature of her trade might well affect the determination of proper remedies, but:

only those rights which are necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the [Labour Relations] Act are to be removed from the enjoyment of appellant. Her dignity is not to be exploited or abused. This remains intact and the concomitant constitutional protection must be available to her as it would to any person whose dignity is attacked unfairly.

The court therefore upheld Kylie's appeal, setting aside the CCMA's ruling and ordering that the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair dismissal dispute.

Reception

Legal experts said that the judgment was unprecedented worldwide. [5] It is often viewed as a complement to the Labour Court's 2008 decision in Discovery Health Limited v CCMA on the application of labour law to employees lacking valid work permits – those "who perform work illegally", in contrast to Kylie and other "employees performing illegal work". [2] [3] [6]

Related Research Articles

Labour laws, labour code or employment laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span> Rights of workers, unions, and duties of employers in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK have a minimum set of employment rights, from Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £10.42 for over-23-year-olds from April 2023 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995. Workers must be able to vote for trustees of their occupational pensions under the Pensions Act 2004. In some enterprises, such as universities or NHS foundation trusts, staff can vote for the directors of the organisation. In enterprises with over 50 staff, workers must be negotiated with, with a view to agreement on any contract or workplace organisation changes, major economic developments or difficulties. The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends worker involvement in voting for a listed company's board of directors but does not yet follow international standards in protecting the right to vote in law. Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work. Collective agreements are ultimately backed up by a trade union's right to strike: a fundamental requirement of democratic society in international law. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 strike action is protected when it is "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian labour law</span> Rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia

Australian labour law sets the rights of working people, the role of trade unions, and democracy at work, and the duties of employers, across the Commonwealth and in states. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission creates a national minimum wage and oversees National Employment Standards for fair hours, holidays, parental leave and job security. The FWC also creates modern awards that apply to most sectors of work, numbering 150 in 2024, with minimum pay scales, and better rights for overtime, holidays, paid leave, and superannuation for a pension in retirement. Beyond this floor of rights, trade unions and employers often create enterprise bargaining agreements for better wages and conditions in their workplaces. However, in 2024 collective agreements only cover 15% of employees, while 22% of employees are classified as "casual", meaning that they lose many basic protections other workers have. Australia's laws on the right to take collective action are among the most restrictive in the developed world, and Australia does not yet have a general law protecting workers' rights to vote and elect worker directors on corporation boards as do most other wealth OECD countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WorkChoices</span> Australian industrial relations law

WorkChoices was the name given to changes made to the federal industrial relations laws in Australia by the Howard government in 2005, being amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, sometimes referred to as the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, that came into effect on 27 March 2006.

Trade unions in South Africa has a history dating back to the 1880s. From the beginning unions could be viewed as a reflection of the racial disunity of the country, with the earliest unions being predominantly for white workers. Through the turbulent years of 1948–1991 trade unions played an important part in developing political and economic resistance, and eventually were one of the driving forces in realising the transition to an inclusive democratic government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Rights Act 1996</span> United Kingdom Law

The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Relations Act 2000</span> Statute of the Parliament of New Zealand

The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian labour law</span> Laws regulating labour in India

Indian labour law refers to law regulating labour in India. Traditionally, the Indian government at the federal and state levels has sought to ensure a high degree of protection for workers, but in practice, this differs due to the form of government and because labour is a subject in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution. The Minimum Wages Act 1948 requires companies to pay the minimum wage set by the government alongside limiting working weeks to 40 hours. Overtime is strongly discouraged with the premium on overtime being 100% of the total wage. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 mandates the payment of wages on time on the last working day of every month via bank transfer or postal service. The Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishment Act 1960 mandate 15 working days of fully paid vacation leave and 7 casual leaves each year to each employee, with an additional 7 fully paid sick days. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 gives female employees of every company the right to take 6 months' worth of fully paid maternity leave. It also provides for 6 weeks worth of paid leaves in case of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees' State Insurance, governed by statutory acts provide workers with necessary social security for retirement benefits and medical and unemployment benefits respectively. Workers entitled to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance are also entitled to 90 days worth of paid medical leaves. A contract of employment can always provide for more rights than the statutory minimum set rights. The Indian parliament passed four labour codes in the 2019 and 2020 sessions. These four codes will consolidate 44 existing labour laws. They are: The Industrial Relations Code 2020, The Code on Social Security 2020, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and The Code on Wages 2019.

<i>Gisda Cyf v Barratt</i>

Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.

<i>Barkhuizen v Napier</i> South African legal case

Barkhuizen v Napier is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 4 May 2006 and decided on 4 April 2007. The judges were Chief Justice Pius Langa, Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, and Justices Tholie Madala, Yvonne Mokgoro, Sandile Ngcobo, Bess Nkabinde, Kate O'Regan, Albie Sachs, Thembile Skweyiya, Johann van der Westhuizen, and Zak Yacoob.

The Labour Court is a South African court that handles labour law cases, that is, disputes arising from the relationship between employer, employee and trade union. The court was established by the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and has a status similar to that of a division of the High Court. It has its seat in Johannesburg and branches in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

<i>Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families</i>

Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families[2011] UKSC 14 and [2011] UKSC 36 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when the continued used of a fixed term contract is objectively justified, and when employees are covered by employment rights during work abroad. The case was joined with Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Fletcher.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Sindane v Prestige Cleaning Services is an important case in South African law, heard in the Labour Court, Johannesburg, on August 28, 2009. Judge Annali Basson presided. David Sindane, bringing an application in terms of section 191(5)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act, appeared for himself; JH de Villiers Botha appeared for the respondent.

Unfair dismissal in Australia is the right to not be unfairly dismissed from work in the Fair Work Act 2009. This is a core part of Australian labour law, and refers to an unlawful act of employment termination due to it being an unfair action on the employee by the employer.

References

  1. 1 2 "Law stops at brothel door". The Mail & Guardian. 6 August 2008. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  2. 1 2 Selala, Dj (16 June 2011). "The Enforceability of Illegal Employment Contracts according to the Labour Appeal Court Comments on Kylie v CCMA 2011 4 SA 383 (LAC)". Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad. 14 (2). doi:10.4314/pelj.v14i2.9. ISSN   1727-3781.
  3. 1 2 Govindjee, Avinash; van der Walt, Adriaan (22 October 2021). "Employment Without Rights? Discovery Health Limited v CCMA 2008 7 BLLR 633 (LC); and "Kylie" v CCMA 2008 9 BLLR 870 (LC)". Obiter. 29 (3). doi:10.17159/obiter.v29i3.12631. ISSN   2709-555X.
  4. ↑ "Judges mull sex worker's dismissal". The Mail & Guardian. 11 March 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  5. 1 2 "Happy hooker welcomes court ruling". The Mail & Guardian. 4 June 2010. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  6. ↑ Newaj, Kamalesh (24 August 2020). "Defining Fairness in Dismissals of Unauthorised Foreign Nationals". Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. 23: 1–25. doi:10.17159/1727-3781/2020/v23i0a7586. ISSN   1727-3781.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.